These warn against the heterodoxy of the Acts. Epiphanius refers to their Encratite character, Augustine to their Manichaean
nature. Turribius' testimony informs us that Priscillianists in Spain were using these Acts, presumably in a Latin version,
in the fifth century. We do not know in what form these fathers knew the writing, since the text was subjected to continuous
alteration. Later catholicized versions, expunged of unacceptable ideas, became very popular in orthodox circles. The proliferation
of censored texts and the creation of Syriac, Arabic, Georgian, Latin, Armenian, and Ethiopic adaptations show the varying
form of the Acts.

The Stichometry of Nicephorus allocates only 1600 (or 1700) lines, so this must refer to only a portion of the total as this
is less than the length of the text of the one complete Greek manuscript. The Acts of Thomas is the only one of the five primary
Acts to have survived in its entirety.

The Syriac of the complete Acts was first published from a British Museum manuscript by Wright in 1871. This manuscript dates
from the seventh century. Fragments of a fifth–sixth century Syriac palimpsest found on Mount Sinai were published by Burkitt
and later, more thoroughly, by Smith Lewis. These forms in Syriac represent a later development of the text found in Greek
(e.g. the prayer in ch. 27 is more orthodox in Syriac than Greek).

Bonnet's Greek is based on twenty‐one manuscripts; Klijn's monograph (bibliography below, under Modern Translations) sets
out clearly the extent of each of these manuscripts.
1
Correct Klijn, p. 4, as follows: D ends at ch. 61; F has 144–9, 163–end.
Only one eleventh‐century manuscript (U) contains the Acts in its entirety, but another (P) of the tenth century is complete
except for the Hymn of the Pearl (chs. 108–13
). There are some eighty‐five Greek manuscripts extant, the oldest being of the ninth century. In some Greek manuscripts the
Martyrdom includes the great prayer of Thomas after 167 whereas the Syriac places it in 144f. The later position seems preferable
and is adopted in the translation below.

The original language is likely to have been Syriac,
2
Several of the Gospel passages cited in the Acts of Thomas seem to be either from a form of the Diatessaron or from the Old
Syriac (rather than the Peshitta).
although it is now generally agreed that (with the exception of the Hymn of the Pearl) the existing Syriac texts are later catholicized versions
and that the existing Greek texts, albeit translations of the Syriac, have in general preserved the primitive form of the
original Acts. There are many instances of the Greek translators' having misunderstood Syriac. The Hymn of the Pearl, which
is discussed below (p. 441), has survived in Syriac and Greek, but most scholars accept that here the Syriac is more faithful
than the Greek. Armenian and Latin translations of parts of the Acts survive, but for interpreting the original form of the
Acts only the Greek and Syriac are relevant, other versions being secondary in importance. The Armenian is likely to have
developed from the Syriac. The Martyrdom, as so often, circulated separately in the oriental versions and represents a different
tradition. The Arabic (ninth‐century) is likely to be developed from Coptic. The Ethiopic (fourteenth‐century) is a translation
of the Arabic. Few remains of the Coptic have survived.

Some of the Acts are strongly Encratite, but such teaching may well have been characteristic of third‐century Christianity
in Syria in so far as this is known from Ephraem, who betrays its richly syncretistic background, and in the Odes of Solomon,
in Aphrahat's writing, and in some of the Pseudo‐Clementine literature. If seen as basically orthodox rather than as Gnostic,
the whole may be read as a kind of early ‘Pilgrim's Progress’, being a fictional romance of conversion. Chapters 79, 80, 143
reflect orthodox views of incarnation, ch. 72
teaches redemption through Christ's suffering. Unworldliness and abstinence as Christian virtues and true marriage seen only
as marriage to the heavenly bridegroom are pushed to the extreme, but the idea that the redeemed life begins in this world
is orthodox. The stress on the sacraments, especially anointing, eucharist, and baptism, has been the subject of critical
comment. The hymns and prayers are of special significance.

Another dominant theme in much of the literature written on these Acts is that of the historicity of the tradition that Thomas
brought Christianity to India. Those who wish to accept the tradition have put much weight on the actual existence of one
of the main characters in the Acts, the Parthian‐Indian king Gundaphorus, whose reign in the first century is attested from
coins. The characters Gad and possibly Abban also are likely to have been historical figures. Because of these clues and because
of allegedly authentic touches some, such as Medlycott and Dahlmann, accepted the historicity of the basic story in these
Acts. Others, such as Farquhar, while recognizing their fictional character, were prepared to accept that the Acts were based
on fact and reflected an actual evangelization of India by Thomas. The consensus of modern scholarly opinion is sceptical
about the historicity of the Thomas story, and in any case the local references are perfunctory. As is usual in this type of literature the eponymous hero and
the milieu of the separate episodes are colourless and stylized. It is not impossible that at the time of the original composition
of the Acts Christianity had been established in India. The convention that apostolic activity was behind the establishment
of a new Christian community encouraged the church in Edessa to magnify its own involvement in such a development by giving
prominence to the pioneering work of Thomas.

Hymn of the Pearl

Much of the interest in the Acts lies in the prayers and sermons; above all it is the splendid oriental hymn now numbered
chs. 108–13
that has been responsible for a vast secondary literature. This is the hymn conventionally referred to as the ‘Hymn of the
Pearl’ or ‘The Hymn of the Soul’.

The text is found in only one of the existing manuscripts of the Syriac Acts
3
It is not in the Sachau MS edited by Bedjan. He reproduced Wright's text at this point.
and in only one of the Greek (as well as in an eleventh‐century epitome by Nicetas of Thessalonica). The Syriac manuscript
is of the tenth century, the Greek of the eleventh.

Scholars are divided about the origin of the hymn, but most accept that it was in existence prior to its incorporation in
the Acts. The wording of the two editions suggests that there were two separate transmissions of the text. The original language
seems to have been Syriac, but the Greek has been translated below (although with an eye to the Syriac). The Parthian origin
of the hymn has been discussed by those who identify Iranian words in the Syriac text.

Like the Acts into which it has been incorporated, the hymn may be seen more as representative of popular piety and folkloristic
story‐telling. The interpretations given to the allegory differ. The identity of the elements and characters in the poem is
not clear. A consistent picture emerges if the child in the poem is the soul which, when on earth, forgets its heavenly origin
until reawakened by a divine revelation that results in its being reunited with its heavenly robe. If it is a myth of the
soul's human incarnation, its eventual disengagement with the body, and ultimate reunion with God, then there is a homiletic
appeal for conversion (and this may be seen at the end of 110). Those who wish to see it as a Gnostic myth emphasize the detail
of the prince's putting on of a garment as an allegory for the acquiring of self‐knowledge. Others interpret it as a redeemer
myth: the allegory now requiring Christ to be the son in the poem. Ménard tries to unravel layers of redaction in the poem,
seeing it finally as a Manichaean version based on a Gnostic reworking of an original more orthodox, Jewish‐Christian work.
This complexity merely serves to underline the ambiguous nature of the material.

Author, Date, Provenance

Judas Thomas is said to be the author. He is the twin of Jesus, having a similar appearance to Jesus (ch. 11) and sharing
Jesus' redeeming work (31, 39). He is the recipient of secret knowledge and in that sense is comparable to the Thomas figure
in the Gospel of Thomas. There is, however, no obvious literary interdependence between the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts
of Thomas despite a shared theological background.

Edessa is likely to have been the place of origin of the Acts of Thomas. The date of the original Acts is third century. If
this is correct then the Acts of Thomas is the oldest non‐Biblical monument of the Syrian Church's literature.

My translation is based on Lipsius–Bonnet's text with some adjustment in chs. 144–8
and in the martyrdom.

M. Bonnet, ‘Actes de S. Thomas Apôtre. Le poème de l’âme. Version grecque remaniée par Nicétas de Thessalonique’, Anal. Boll. 20 (1901), 159–64 (adaptation of part of the Greek Acts including a summary of the ‘Hymn of the Pearl (Soul)’).